They're not using drivers to fund any research. That would imply that they were actually making money on them. At best, they're using drivers to make it look like they actually have a business so they can get more loans and venture capital.
Or it could be that Uber is run by a bunch of scofflaw assholes. It happens. Their attempts to end-run around laws don't inspire much confidence in me.
They should know that an update might be incompatible with parts of unknown quality, suitability, and source. The OS is designed to work on unmodified Apple devices. One of Apple's advantages is being able to design for a limited hardware range, and they use that. After you get dodgy repairs on a device like that, your best move is to refuse any OS updates.
In what way is Apple not allowing third-party repairs? TFS says they refuse to repair devices that already have third-party repairs. Not the same thing.
Do you actually have a source for that? I have bought numerous Apple products, and have never been told such a thing. Nor have I ever seen it in a EULA (and I do occasionally read them all the way through). In the US, an exchange of a thing for money, without further ado, is generally considered a sale.
If Apple replaces my device with one that works just as well, why should I care if it's new or refurbished? I'd care about badly refurbished, but if I can't tell it isn't new I don't care.
The question is whether it's possible to do it right. I've been in successful scrum projects. I've never seen a case of communism working in anything larger than a village with a charismatic leader. Agile and scrum can be done right, and are often done wrong. Communism can't be done right (on the scale people usually mean), and is always done wrong.
There's too much work and not enough people unless you pay way above what someone is worth.
That sentence is incompatible with belief in a free market. In a free market, you are worth at least what you're being paid. If the work is that important, and it's necessary to hire more people than are readily available, pay goes up to match. If the developer isn't worth hiring, the work can't be that important.
In interviews, when asked about working overtime, I reply that there's always going to be some crunch time, and I'm willing to go along with that. Seems to satisfy people.
What puzzles me is why anyone would issue an ultimatum.
david:thornley: I'd like to take off these two weeks in July.
Ol Olsoc: Sure.
david_thornley: How dare you? I insist on those two weeks, and I'll resign.
In this scene, what's my motivation? I don't have a good grasp of my character.
I had a manager once who insisted that he be included in any lottery pool. He figured that, if all of us called in rich, he didn't want to be left holding the bag.
A friend of mine was a project lead for LucasLearning, and he had to cancel a vacation because another department didn't bother to meet a clearly explained deadline. The company paid for his prepaid expenses, and set him up on a later vacation. It was still unfortunate because he missed the sailing trip the rest of us had scheduled for.
If developers are so expensive and so hard to find, it should be easy to leave a job where you're not allowed time off and find one where you are. Alternatively, tell them that you will be taking your vacation, and if they don't like it they can do without you forever.
If developers aren't that hard to find, then your "have to" is bogus.
There are, though, theories that are generally accepted, at least in broad strokes. We are confident that complex life developed through evolution involving natural selection, for example, although there's still lots of argument on the details. How are we to know what theories are generally accepted?
A theory, once proposed, is likely to be controversial. Smart people look at the theory and made predictions, and publish these in journals. Other smart people (or the same ones) make observations and publish those. These journal papers are reviewed by smart people. Smart people read these papers, once published, and come up with problems in the paper or other possible testable hypotheses. If the theory is good, then eventually smart people will notice that the experimental evidence is in accord with the theory and its predictions, and conflicts with the other theories people have thought up.
If the theory is correct, we see very few smart people actively trying to prove it is wrong, because the theory is correct to within the limits of experimental or observational error, and the other ones do not accord with the evidence. We see other smart people assuming it and building on it. In short, we find a consensus of scientists on the theory. If there are rival theories, we see a lot of scientists arguing over it. If the theory is the best proposed but unsatisfactory, people will continue trying to disprove it. (One example would be the luminiferous aether, since physicists had a great deal of difficulty with an incredibly rigid substance pervading all space without affecting the movement of objects.)
From the outside, I may be able to come up with arguments against a generally accepted theory, although the odds are that some smart person who has dedicated themself to the topic has already thought of it, and it's been discounted. I can't know that it is in accord with the evidence, since I can't possibly study that much without joining the field. I can take a meta-scientific approach, and observe that a theory that is generally accepted by the field has been extensively verified and found to be in accordance with the evidence by lots of smart people who know the subject, and therefore it's good science.
Obviously, any theory, no matter how well accepted, can suddenly become inconsistent with new evidence. We can't say any given theory is true. When we do want to act on something, we can look for generally accepted science, because we won't have anything else nearly as good.
Snopes.com has a good article on the uranium issue. Clinton was part of a panel that reviewed the sale of 51% of a uranium country to a Russian company. Obama's foreign policy at the time was to try being friendly to Russia. This is a complete non-issue.
The deaths at Benghazi are more the fault of Congress. Clinton had asked Congress for more money for security, claiming that the current one was insufficient to defend embassies and consulates. During the actual fighting, she was an ocean and half a sea away, and could do nothing about it. I suspect she also has no military command experience, and issuing orders to those in the fight would have been a real bad idea.
The CIA was perfectly within its rights to tap a foreign national in Trump Tower. I don't know the details, but Trump Tower is not soley Trump's residence.
Techincally, I'm not a devil, and I don't worship swine.
The server did not need to be authorized, and unintentional mishandling of classified material has not resulted in Federal prison in any case I could find. I'm not impressed by her IT people.
Go complain about Trump and the emoluments clauses.
Because hiring decisions are not rational. Resumes will be treated differently based on the gender or apparent race of the name, when all other factors are held constant. Interviews are notoriously bad at picking out people, according to every study I've read about.
Businesses typically don't optimize outside their core competencies, and often not in that. Lots of businesses manage their affairs badly and continue on for years and years. Don't count on them to be rational and focused on their best interests.
The lack of males in the nursing field is widely considered a problem. As far as medical care goes, it seems to me that there's lots of gaps where doctors don't really care, and comparing two types of cancer is not going to be significant.
It is illegal to discriminate against a protected group. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, because it's sometimes unconscious and is almost always unprovable in court. Statistically, we can sometimes find a group is discriminated against, but that doesn't say any given individual was discriminated against by any given company, which is what the individual would need to have a case.
Anti-discrimination laws generally don't work. Most businesses are smart enough to give other reasons if pressed on decisions to hire, award raises, promote, or dismiss. Most businesses probably don't intentionally discriminate, but wind up doing so anyway.
As a society, we should encourage everyone to succeed according to their abilities. A business is best off hiring and promoting people based on their abilities. Maintaining a system that favors one group over another goes against both goals, no matter how innocuously it came about and stayed. Figuring this stuff out is hard, but it's not an excuse for declaring the current system perfect and blaming those who don't succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not using drivers to fund any research. That would imply that they were actually making money on them. At best, they're using drivers to make it look like they actually have a business so they can get more loans and venture capital.
Or it could be that Uber is run by a bunch of scofflaw assholes. It happens. Their attempts to end-run around laws don't inspire much confidence in me.
Ironically, the Constitution defines treason. Doing something not legal according to the Constitution does not qualify.
All businesses establish acceptable conduct standards. It's perfectly legal to deny a potential customer service based on individual behavior.
The government does not have arbitrary power to grab information or suppress free speech on the part of its employees.
They should know that an update might be incompatible with parts of unknown quality, suitability, and source. The OS is designed to work on unmodified Apple devices. One of Apple's advantages is being able to design for a limited hardware range, and they use that. After you get dodgy repairs on a device like that, your best move is to refuse any OS updates.
In what way is Apple not allowing third-party repairs? TFS says they refuse to repair devices that already have third-party repairs. Not the same thing.
Do you actually have a source for that? I have bought numerous Apple products, and have never been told such a thing. Nor have I ever seen it in a EULA (and I do occasionally read them all the way through). In the US, an exchange of a thing for money, without further ado, is generally considered a sale.
If Apple replaces my device with one that works just as well, why should I care if it's new or refurbished? I'd care about badly refurbished, but if I can't tell it isn't new I don't care.
I had a lot of difficulty getting job offers. Then I dyed my hair, and I had no difficulty any more. YMMV.
The question is whether it's possible to do it right. I've been in successful scrum projects. I've never seen a case of communism working in anything larger than a village with a charismatic leader. Agile and scrum can be done right, and are often done wrong. Communism can't be done right (on the scale people usually mean), and is always done wrong.
That sentence is incompatible with belief in a free market. In a free market, you are worth at least what you're being paid. If the work is that important, and it's necessary to hire more people than are readily available, pay goes up to match. If the developer isn't worth hiring, the work can't be that important.
In interviews, when asked about working overtime, I reply that there's always going to be some crunch time, and I'm willing to go along with that. Seems to satisfy people.
What puzzles me is why anyone would issue an ultimatum.
david:thornley: I'd like to take off these two weeks in July.
Ol Olsoc: Sure.
david_thornley: How dare you? I insist on those two weeks, and I'll resign.
In this scene, what's my motivation? I don't have a good grasp of my character.
My company puts out a reminder every summer that vacation is for getting away from the office, and not to do any work then.
I had a manager once who insisted that he be included in any lottery pool. He figured that, if all of us called in rich, he didn't want to be left holding the bag.
A friend of mine was a project lead for LucasLearning, and he had to cancel a vacation because another department didn't bother to meet a clearly explained deadline. The company paid for his prepaid expenses, and set him up on a later vacation. It was still unfortunate because he missed the sailing trip the rest of us had scheduled for.
If developers are so expensive and so hard to find, it should be easy to leave a job where you're not allowed time off and find one where you are. Alternatively, tell them that you will be taking your vacation, and if they don't like it they can do without you forever.
If developers aren't that hard to find, then your "have to" is bogus.
There are, though, theories that are generally accepted, at least in broad strokes. We are confident that complex life developed through evolution involving natural selection, for example, although there's still lots of argument on the details. How are we to know what theories are generally accepted?
A theory, once proposed, is likely to be controversial. Smart people look at the theory and made predictions, and publish these in journals. Other smart people (or the same ones) make observations and publish those. These journal papers are reviewed by smart people. Smart people read these papers, once published, and come up with problems in the paper or other possible testable hypotheses. If the theory is good, then eventually smart people will notice that the experimental evidence is in accord with the theory and its predictions, and conflicts with the other theories people have thought up.
If the theory is correct, we see very few smart people actively trying to prove it is wrong, because the theory is correct to within the limits of experimental or observational error, and the other ones do not accord with the evidence. We see other smart people assuming it and building on it. In short, we find a consensus of scientists on the theory. If there are rival theories, we see a lot of scientists arguing over it. If the theory is the best proposed but unsatisfactory, people will continue trying to disprove it. (One example would be the luminiferous aether, since physicists had a great deal of difficulty with an incredibly rigid substance pervading all space without affecting the movement of objects.)
From the outside, I may be able to come up with arguments against a generally accepted theory, although the odds are that some smart person who has dedicated themself to the topic has already thought of it, and it's been discounted. I can't know that it is in accord with the evidence, since I can't possibly study that much without joining the field. I can take a meta-scientific approach, and observe that a theory that is generally accepted by the field has been extensively verified and found to be in accordance with the evidence by lots of smart people who know the subject, and therefore it's good science.
Obviously, any theory, no matter how well accepted, can suddenly become inconsistent with new evidence. We can't say any given theory is true. When we do want to act on something, we can look for generally accepted science, because we won't have anything else nearly as good.
Snopes.com has a good article on the uranium issue. Clinton was part of a panel that reviewed the sale of 51% of a uranium country to a Russian company. Obama's foreign policy at the time was to try being friendly to Russia. This is a complete non-issue.
The deaths at Benghazi are more the fault of Congress. Clinton had asked Congress for more money for security, claiming that the current one was insufficient to defend embassies and consulates. During the actual fighting, she was an ocean and half a sea away, and could do nothing about it. I suspect she also has no military command experience, and issuing orders to those in the fight would have been a real bad idea.
The CIA was perfectly within its rights to tap a foreign national in Trump Tower. I don't know the details, but Trump Tower is not soley Trump's residence.
Techincally, I'm not a devil, and I don't worship swine.
For increasing the appropriations for DHS and DoD and the profits of drug lords, obviously. The names are just propaganda.
The server did not need to be authorized, and unintentional mishandling of classified material has not resulted in Federal prison in any case I could find. I'm not impressed by her IT people.
Go complain about Trump and the emoluments clauses.
Because hiring decisions are not rational. Resumes will be treated differently based on the gender or apparent race of the name, when all other factors are held constant. Interviews are notoriously bad at picking out people, according to every study I've read about.
Businesses typically don't optimize outside their core competencies, and often not in that. Lots of businesses manage their affairs badly and continue on for years and years. Don't count on them to be rational and focused on their best interests.
The lack of males in the nursing field is widely considered a problem. As far as medical care goes, it seems to me that there's lots of gaps where doctors don't really care, and comparing two types of cancer is not going to be significant.
It is illegal to discriminate against a protected group. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, because it's sometimes unconscious and is almost always unprovable in court. Statistically, we can sometimes find a group is discriminated against, but that doesn't say any given individual was discriminated against by any given company, which is what the individual would need to have a case.
Anti-discrimination laws generally don't work. Most businesses are smart enough to give other reasons if pressed on decisions to hire, award raises, promote, or dismiss. Most businesses probably don't intentionally discriminate, but wind up doing so anyway.
As a society, we should encourage everyone to succeed according to their abilities. A business is best off hiring and promoting people based on their abilities. Maintaining a system that favors one group over another goes against both goals, no matter how innocuously it came about and stayed. Figuring this stuff out is hard, but it's not an excuse for declaring the current system perfect and blaming those who don't succeed.